Note: Yoshuel means "Godman" (incarnate God). In jewish sources He is refered as yoshua (that man) in a disdainful and insulting way, that's why it's more appropiate to refer to Him as Yoshuel in Hebrew.

Note: Yoshuel means "Godman" (incarnate God). In jewish sources He is refered as yoshua (that man) in a disdainful and insulting way, that's why it's more appropiate to refer to Him as Yoshuel in Hebrew.

Note: Yoshuel means "Godman" (incarnate God). In jewish sources He is refered as yoshua (that man) in a disdainful and insulting way, that's why it's more appropiate to refer to Him as Yoshuel in Hebrew.

In fact, Jesus' phonetic name "Yeshua" is a fine term, meaning "God saves", and is actually the same as the name for the leader Joshua in the Old Testament (Jesus and Joshua are spelled differently in English, but spelled the same in Russian).

I also want to share with you a fascinating discovery I learned myself today. The Hebrew Bible, like the Hebrew language, was apparently written in a "Hebrew" alphabet before 586 BC. In the time of Moses, David, and Hosea it would have been written in this older alphabet, which looked alot more like Greek and Latin letters than the alphabet Hebrew uses now.

The old alphabet looked like this:One person pointed out that the D here is like Greek Delta and can remind one of the Star of David, suggesting that the star symbol may have been based on David's name.

In about 586 BC, Ezra the scribe changed the writing over to the Aramaic alphabet, which is what Hebrew has used ever since.Peace.

Note: Yoshuel means "Godman" (incarnate God). In jewish sources He is refered as yoshua (that man) in a disdainful and insulting way, that's why it's more appropiate to refer to Him as Yoshuel in Hebrew.

yes, I also use this site, it is (from my understanding) very accurate and is also a good source for learning the earlier aleph-bets like Aramaic, Paleo-Hebrew, Pictograph etc.

the only issue I have with it is its pronunciation of waw/vav, taw/tav, etc. I prefer the "w" as it is the older transliteration. VERY minor and debatable thing in reality, but my teacher always taught me from the older transliteration and in a very hebraic accent, stuff like that just irks me for some reason but again, not a big deal.

the only issue I have with it is its pronunciation of waw/vav, taw/tav, etc. I prefer the "w" as it is the older transliteration. VERY minor and debatable thing in reality, but my teacher always taught me from the older transliteration and in a very hebraic accent, stuff like that just irks me for some reason but again, not a big deal.

I was just reading and learning this new fact between the time I made the post above and you wrote yours!So it turns out Yahweh was really pronounced like that after all, and not as Yah-Veh.

I also want to share with you a fascinating discovery I learned myself today. The Hebrew Bible, like the Hebrew language, was apparently written in a "Hebrew" alphabet before 586 BC. In the time of Moses, David, and Hosea it would have been written in this older alphabet, which looked alot more like Greek and Latin letters than the alphabet Hebrew uses now.

The old alphabet looked like this:One person pointed out that the D here is like Greek Delta and can remind one of the Star of David, suggesting that the star symbol may have been based on David's name.

In about 586 BC, Ezra the scribe changed the writing over to the Aramaic alphabet, which is what Hebrew has used ever since.Peace.

the only issue I have with it is its pronunciation of waw/vav, taw/tav, etc. I prefer the "w" as it is the older transliteration. VERY minor and debatable thing in reality, but my teacher always taught me from the older transliteration and in a very hebraic accent, stuff like that just irks me for some reason but again, not a big deal.

I was just reading and learning this new fact between the time I made the post above and you wrote yours!So it turns out Yahweh was really pronounced like that after all, and not as Yah-Veh.

well, that is dangerous territory.

no-one knows how YHWH is truly pronounced.

I am stuck between Yah-Weh and Yeh-Wah. However, questions like this don't really matter.

the only issue I have with it is its pronunciation of waw/vav, taw/tav, etc. I prefer the "w" as it is the older transliteration. VERY minor and debatable thing in reality, but my teacher always taught me from the older transliteration and in a very hebraic accent, stuff like that just irks me for some reason but again, not a big deal.

This also brings up another issue of how Palestinians are in some ways closer to the ancient Israelites. The Palestinian name "Daoud" matches the pronunciation of "David" in ancient Hebrew, while in modern times, Israeli Hebrew has been changed, so that the pronunciation is different, as in "David ben Gurion".

Or to give another example, there were Palestinian villages like, the Orthodox village of Al-Bassa, that kept root names from Biblical times, but that have been replaced in the last 60 years by Israeli settlements with new names.

the only issue I have with it is its pronunciation of waw/vav, taw/tav, etc. I prefer the "w" as it is the older transliteration. VERY minor and debatable thing in reality, but my teacher always taught me from the older transliteration and in a very hebraic accent, stuff like that just irks me for some reason but again, not a big deal.

This also brings up another issue of how Palestinians are in some ways closer to the ancient Israelites. The Palestinian name "Daoud" matches the pronunciation of "David" in ancient Hebrew, while in modern times, Israeli Hebrew has been changed, so that the pronunciation is different, as in "David ben Gurion".

Or to give another example, there are Palestinian villages that have kept root names from Biblical times, but that have been replaced in the last 60 years by Israeli settlements with new names.

that's not really a surprise, my teacher knew Hebrew and Arabic and apparently they are very similar, the only difference is that they did not have the influence of German or Russian accents. In my opinion the truest form of Hebrew is spoken by the Yemenite Jews and some obscure groups in Syria. Some things however have, sadly, been lost, we will never know for sure how everything was truly pronounced unless we find Moses's tape recorder.

Some things however have, sadly, been lost, we will never know for sure how everything was truly pronounced unless we find Moses's tape recorder.

Now isn't one thing that locks in the Word's continuity is that there is a special mathematical code between letters in the Bible so that copying mistakes wouldn't be made and transmitted over time? One example of this could be that every 7th letter in the Torah spells part of the word Torah, I think.

Quote

The ktav tradition used gemmatrial means to mathematically assure accuracy of transmission without “spilling a drop” (as the mishnaic scribes explained it).

Some things however have, sadly, been lost, we will never know for sure how everything was truly pronounced unless we find Moses's tape recorder.

Now isn't one thing that locks in the Word's continuity is that there is a special mathematical code between letters in the Bible so that copying mistakes wouldn't be made and transmitted over time? One example of this could be that every 7th letter in the Torah spells part of the word Torah, I think.

Quote

The ktav tradition used gemmatrial means to mathematically assure accuracy of transmission without “spilling a drop” (as the mishnaic scribes explained it).

for the most part, this is true, however the Masoretic is filled with errors. Besides that, there really is no way to know how to pronounce everything. For example, the correct pronunciation of Torah is To-rah not Tor-ah. However, I have heard many Orthodox Jews say Tor-ah in front of non-Jewish friends. Who knows, maybe the Jews will change the pronunciation of it as well as many other things 100+ years from now.

Some things however have, sadly, been lost, we will never know for sure how everything was truly pronounced unless we find Moses's tape recorder.

Now isn't one thing that locks in the Word's continuity is that there is a special mathematical code between letters in the Bible so that copying mistakes wouldn't be made and transmitted over time? One example of this could be that every 7th letter in the Torah spells part of the word Torah, I think.

Quote

The ktav tradition used gemmatrial means to mathematically assure accuracy of transmission without “spilling a drop” (as the mishnaic scribes explained it).

for the most part, this is true, however the Masoretic is filled with errors.

That's true I believe. I was suggesting the issue of the gematria method to see if that could ascertain where those errors are. If the Gematria points a different way in a controversial passage, perhaps the gematria's suggestion is right.

By the way, the video you pointed out started with a "copying error" that is supposedly a case where a phrase was copied twice by accident. However, this error exists even in the Septuagint, so that particular mistake, if it is one, must be going back long before Jesus' own time.

Also, I wanted to say your knowledge is impressive. How do you know so much about Hebrew and Judaic ways, may I ask?

Some things however have, sadly, been lost, we will never know for sure how everything was truly pronounced unless we find Moses's tape recorder.

Now isn't one thing that locks in the Word's continuity is that there is a special mathematical code between letters in the Bible so that copying mistakes wouldn't be made and transmitted over time? One example of this could be that every 7th letter in the Torah spells part of the word Torah, I think.

Quote

The ktav tradition used gemmatrial means to mathematically assure accuracy of transmission without “spilling a drop” (as the mishnaic scribes explained it).

for the most part, this is true, however the Masoretic is filled with errors.

That's true I believe. I was suggesting the issue of the gematria method to see if that could ascertain where those errors are. If the Gematria points a different way in a controversial passage, perhaps the gematria's suggestion is right.

By the way, the video you pointed out started with a "copying error" that is supposedly a case where a phrase was copied twice by accident. However, this error exists even in the Septuagint, so that particular mistake, if it is one, must be going back long before Jesus' own time.

Also, I wanted to say your knowledge is impressive. How do you know so much about Hebrew and Judaic ways, may I ask?

Peace.

My teacher (memory eternal) was an ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbi who converted to Messianic Judaism. He was a great teacher, not like most modern day ones that either demand specific interpretations and pronunciations, or are ignorant to history (like some Hebrew teachers who question the existence of Aramaic because its existence breaks Talmudic oral law). He was very knowledgeable in how ancient people lived and practiced Judaism and in gematria (which can be very frustrating, thankfully I was taught that early on).

the rest comes from a mix of some minor study with archaeologists (who usually know very little Hebrew but have some better understanding of how ancients lived), Jeff Benner (who made the video I linked you to), TheTabernacleMan, and (ironically) hebrew4christians

also, as far as the LXX and the copying error goes, I had no idea it was in the LXX. If it is, I don't believe it was an error, the LXX is (from what I was told) supposed to be the "end-all-be-all" when it comes to OT for Orthodox Christians. I'll study the verse a little more to see if I can find anything that it might mean, do you know if the Church has a specific interpretation or not?

My teacher (memory eternal) was an ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbi who converted to Messianic Judaism. He was a great teacher, not like most modern day ones that either demand specific interpretations and pronunciations, or are ignorant to history (like some Hebrew teachers who question the existence of Aramaic because its existence breaks Talmudic oral law). He was very knowledgeable in how ancient people lived and practiced Judaism and in gematria (which can be very frustrating, thankfully I was taught that early on).

the rest comes from a mix of some minor study with archaeologists (who usually know very little Hebrew but have some better understanding of how ancients lived), Jeff Benner (who made the video I linked you to), TheTabernacleMan, and (ironically) hebrew4christians

also, as far as the LXX and the copying error goes, I had no idea it was in the LXX. If it is, I don't believe it was an error, the LXX is (from what I was told) supposed to be the "end-all-be-all" when it comes to OT for Orthodox Christians. I'll study the verse a little more to see if I can find anything that it might mean, do you know if the Church has a specific interpretation or not?

Shalom

Your background and training in it sounds neat! I think that the Messianic movement does have alot to offer. For example, its study of Hebrew brings up things that we might not consider, like the gematria you mentioned. That of course doesn't mean Orthodox wouldn't figure it out, but I think the Messianics' focus brings it out more, practically speaking. And of course the Messianics can be wrong about things too.

On one hand, I think the Jewish roots of Christianity is something important, and it is helpful to see how the rituals were. But not only does the Messianic movement tend to separate itself from non-Messianic Christians despite Christians' goal for unity, but I have become more doubtful of their idea that Jesus and the early Jewish Christians were so "Torah-observant" after all, even before it got to Paul. Two of the things that stick in my mind are Peter's vision that eating any animal is not "unclean" and Jesus' instructions to the healed man to carry his pallet on the Sabbath (not just that he healed on the Sabbath). I saw a list of such "breakings of the law", which was somewhat persuasive for me.

Regarding the LXX, you are right that the Orthodox rely on this text as it was passed down in the Christian communities. Yet I am doubtful that Orthodox must believe each word of the LXX in Greek is "infallible" or perfect. My guess is that with Holy tradition in general we consider it inspired, but that doesn't mean each piece is exact, since there are disagreements among theologians. What's even more important for me, though, is that the New Testament sometimes quotes verses that match the Masoretic instead of the LXX.

Of course, you can say that they are "both" inspired. But then what about the 10 commandments, which were obviously written in Hebrew, and by God Himself? The original Hebrew there would seem pretty important to me! Meanwhile, the Russian Church considers the Church Slavic translation to be divinely guided. But there are differences where Russian theologians consider the Septuagint to be better and different from the Church Slavic translation. My guess is that the Septuagint could therefore be considered in Orthodoxy similarly: the translators were divinely guided, but it might not be that each word is exact to what the prophet was inspired to write.

So LXX: inspired? Yes, in a way. As with other church traditions like icons."Infallibly" Exact? Not necessarily.

My teacher (memory eternal) was an ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbi who converted to Messianic Judaism. He was a great teacher, not like most modern day ones that either demand specific interpretations and pronunciations, or are ignorant to history (like some Hebrew teachers who question the existence of Aramaic because its existence breaks Talmudic oral law). He was very knowledgeable in how ancient people lived and practiced Judaism and in gematria (which can be very frustrating, thankfully I was taught that early on).

the rest comes from a mix of some minor study with archaeologists (who usually know very little Hebrew but have some better understanding of how ancients lived), Jeff Benner (who made the video I linked you to), TheTabernacleMan, and (ironically) hebrew4christians

also, as far as the LXX and the copying error goes, I had no idea it was in the LXX. If it is, I don't believe it was an error, the LXX is (from what I was told) supposed to be the "end-all-be-all" when it comes to OT for Orthodox Christians. I'll study the verse a little more to see if I can find anything that it might mean, do you know if the Church has a specific interpretation or not?

Shalom

Your background and training in it sounds neat! I think that the Messianic movement does have alot to offer. For example, its study of Hebrew brings up things that we might not consider, like the gematria you mentioned. That of course doesn't mean Orthodox wouldn't figure it out, but I think the Messianics' focus brings it out more, practically speaking. And of course the Messianics can be wrong about things too.

On one hand, I think the Jewish roots of Christianity is something important, and it is helpful to see how the rituals were. But not only does the Messianic movement tend to separate itself from non-Messianic Christians despite Christians' goal for unity, but I have become more doubtful of their idea that Jesus and the early Jewish Christians were so "Torah-observant" after all, even before it got to Paul. Two of the things that stick in my mind are Peter's vision that eating any animal is not "unclean" and Jesus' instructions to the healed man to carry his pallet on the Sabbath (not just that he healed on the Sabbath). I saw a list of such "breakings of the law", which was somewhat persuasive for me.

Indeed, Messianic Jews believe that most of the traditions in the Torah are strictly cultural and play no part in salvation, like how many Ethiopians get circumcisions and observe many dietary restrictions. As far as the laws themselves, I think St. Barnabas pretty much hit the nail on the head about the many commandments like alleged dietary laws, farming laws, etc. even my teacher agreed with me, he said he only did it because he was a Jew and that is how his culture is.

Now, what I would do to get my hands on the documents translated in the LXX...

Now, what I would do to get my hands on the documents translated in the LXX...

Don't some Dead Sea Scrolls go back to the 408-300 BC? I think the Isaiah scroll goes to 100 BC, which would have been before controversies about Christian readings came about:http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Now, what I would do to get my hands on the documents translated in the LXX...

Don't some Dead Sea Scrolls go back to the 408-300 BC? I think the Isaiah scroll goes to 100 BC, which would have been before controversies about Christian readings came about:http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

There are some differences between them, IIRC the DSS has a different version of Devar'im/Deuteronomy 32:43(?), of course I, sadly, don't speak Greek so I can't test this theory.

Still if someone found a "second Qumran" in Alexandria, I'll be the first one there.

Although I'm far too lazy to read the entire thread, I'll address two issues that I noticed.Jesus's proper name in Hebrew is Yeshua, which means "God saves" or "salvation of God". It is actualIy just an abbreviation of the longer, proper name, Yehoshua (Joshua). It is a fairly common form of name in both ancient and modern Hebrew. Ye=God, being the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, whereas Shua is the root of the word for salvation. What's interesting is that it means salvation in both the past, present and future tenses. Another intiresting tidbit is that Yishayahu (Isaiah) has the exact same meaning. The word "Yesu" is a transliteration back into Hebrew of the Greek Jesu, and it's somewhat met with disdain amongst the churches here, who much prefer the original name Yeshua.